The Decider is the Divider

From the campaign trail:

President Bush ratcheted up his campaign offensive against Democrats on Tuesday with perhaps his bluntest rhetoric yet as he accused them of being “softer” on terrorists and willing to allow attacks on Americans rather than interrogate or spy on the nation’s enemies.
…

“Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways,” he told donors here. “They talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out.”

He added: “If you don’t think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when al-Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican.”

It should be obvious that he’s lying about the debate on listening in on terrorists. People like me (not just Democrats) want our intelligence community listening in on the terrorists. We just want President Bush to follow the Constitution he swore to uphold. All of it, of course, but mostly the part about warrants. If it’s obvious they’re terrorists, what’s the difficulty in getting the (retroactive) warrant?

To President Bush’s specific accusation: what about when the hard choices are necessary to win a war? Whose soft side comes out then?

Is it January 2009 yet?

State lotteries are free to corrupt

We all know that Congress wants to protect us from ourselves, even when we’re not putting ourselves in danger, but shouldn’t someone in power call Rep. Jim Leach on his defense of the online gambling bill?

Proponents of the measure heralded its passage as a victory for family values and a blow against an addictive vice. Jim Leach, the Iowa Republican who sponsored the bill, said it will prevent casinos from further extending their corruptive reach. “Religious leaders of all denominations and faiths are seeing gambling problems erode family values,” Leach said in a statement. “If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers, but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their BlackBerries as they wait in line at the movies.”

Two glaring holes in Rep. Leach’s reasoning jump out. First, aside from the silly, meaningless declaration that “gambling problems erode family values,” (“Sorry, son, we don’t have any family values left. Jimmy from down the street, his father has a gambling problem that eroded what we had left. The good news is I needn’t bear responsibility for your well-being. There’s a prostitute in your room, get going.”), he does not provide any data support for his claim that religious leaders are seeing gambling problems. Has he heard from one religious leader from each denomination? A hundred? A thousand? Or is it just a line of unsubstantiated crap that he can throw to his base to encourage them to give Republicans another term of control?

I suspect he has no data, but even if he does, so what? People should be free to spend their money as they see fit. If potential harm dismisses any claim to liberty, why isn’t Congress banning every other activity which could cause harm. Let’s go all the way, because we don’t want to erode family values. People drown in bath tubs. Let’s ban bath oils, which only encourage people to engage in the dangerous activity of taking baths. And showers are out, because people could slip and die. Sponge baths (no tubs or buckets – drowning risk – water faucet only) only.

Second, Rep. Leach’s examples of gambling addiction out of control are lacking. While driving? Seriously? Let localities ban cell phone use while driving if it’s a safety hazard. That’s not a federal issue. And gambling by BlackBerry while waiting in a movie line? Ummm, if the person is so addicted and out of control, how is he able to step away from the BlackBerry gambling long enough to watch a movie? Again, though, if that’s how someone wants to spend his time, so what? Clearly liberty now only extends to the minimum boundaries of what Rep. Leach likes.

Source: Wil Wheaton, blogging at Card Squad

Principles used to defeat “If it feels good”

More Best of the Web obtuseness from James Taranto, this time regarding a story about the torture of British soldiers in Iraq in 2003. First, from the news report:

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

That’s a heinous crime, which I can’t imagine any civilized person would deem as anything other than the worst sort of sub-human action. Essentially, this is proof that we’re the good guys. I didn’t need more evidence, but the world is cruel. But what’s Mr. Taranto’s take? Consider:

We keep hearing that if we don’t accord Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda detainees, our soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment. But here is how an enemy–one that, unlike al Qaeda, actually is a signatory to Geneva–treats Western soldiers. So what exactly do we gain by even meeting our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, much less exceeding them?

We keep our dignity and the moral high ground. We retain the right to become indignant at such violations, and to act on them. We hold true to our ideals. Most importantly, we remain human. That’s worth something. Everything, in fact. It’s shameful that the Wall Street Journal’s editors can’t understand that.

I can hear the groans now

On a whizzical note from Norway, this story seems as if it’s been streamed directly from The Onion, but it appears legit:

The head of The Democrats Party, a splinter group of former Progress Party hardliners, Vidar Kleppe, is outraged that boys at Dvergsnes School in Kristiansand have to sit and pee.
…

“It is a human right not to have to sit down like a girl,” Kleppe said.

I’m amused at the piddling nature of this issue, but really, I’m fairly certain that it’s unwise to wrap a bogus “human right” claim around a dose of sexism. What audience is he aiming for?

(Via: Boing Boing)

He must complicate it to simplify it

I love tax reform ideas especially when they come from sitting members of Congress. Rep. Bob Goodlatte is thinking of ways for you and me to keep more of money from the IRS:

I believe that our country is in desperate need of tax reform. The current system has spiraled out of control. At a time when Americans devote 7.4 billion hours to comply with the tax code, we need simplification.

I have twice voted to abolish the current code, and recently introduced legislation that forces Congress to address reform. My bill, H.R. 4725, the Tax Code Termination Act, is quite simple. It abolishes the Tax Code, and then calls on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system.

I believe that only after the current code is scheduled for elimination, will Congress engage in serious discussions about alternative tax proposals. I am certain that if Congress is forced to address reform we can create a code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today.

I believe the key ingredient for tax reform should be: a low rate for taxpayers, tax relief for working people; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth. Taxes may be unavoidable but they don’t have to be unfair and overcomplicated. I will continue to look for ways to simplify this needlessly complex tax process.

It’s amusing that Rep. Goodlatte believes the Congress will act on telling itself it needs to address the problem when it won’t address the problem it already acknowledges, but he’s probably smarter than I am. That must also be why I fail to see how installing extra special benefits for some people, as well as placing incentives in the tax code designed to get taxpayers to use their tax savings the right way, will somehow make the tax process simpler. I’m at a loss, although the save and invest part will probably work out after Rep. Goodlatte and his colleagues ban every form of recreational spending not related to saving and investing. Witness the shift of $6 billion to mutual funds now that the Congress double super banned gambling on The Internets. Well done, Congressman.

Congress could be where thinking began

Congratulations are in order to the United States Congress. In a bold move of understanding, it stripped a needless provision from the port security bill it passed over the weekend:

Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday. But the day before, a House-Senate conference committee stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs. Port security isn’t just about checking the contents of cargo containers, it also means checking the background of the 400,000 workers on our docks.

Felons will not be barred from crucial jobs where a reasonable person not using the wonderfully intuitive powers of deductions granted to our smartest leaders might believe that to be a Bad Idea&#153. But leadership involves understanding the full picture of society, those “unintended consequences,” if you will. When viewed together with this provision of the port security deal, the good senators (Sen. Frist, in particular) understood that we wouldn’t want to exclude a significant portion of American adults.

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement last night on legislation to tighten maritime and port security regulations and, in a last-minute move, added an unrelated measure that seeks to ban Internet gambling.
…

The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the Senate early today, as lawmakers rushed to leave Washington for their fall reelection campaigns. Senate Republican and Democratic leaders announced it would be passed by voice vote after the House’s late-night vote.

You see, foresight! The Congress knew that many Americans could now become felons for operating a financial institution that offers customers a service they want violating Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s morality funding drugs and terrorism¹! That’s bad, and they should pay the price, but we still need secure ports. We don’t want no stinkin’ foreigners handling that job.

¹ From the Washington Post’s article:

Proponents of the crackdown said the industry, which is mostly based overseas, provides a front for money laundering, some of it by drug sellers and terrorist groups, while preying on children and gambling addicts. Americans bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, accounting for half the worldwide market, according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Am I going too far out on a limb to request that the reporter investigate this claim rather than accepting spoon-fed horseshit from some political hack? I don’t think so.

No constitutional protection for you!

I came across two curious quotes about Virginia’s proposed amendment designed to diminish the Bill of Rights.

“Nothing will change,” said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), one of the amendment’s sponsors. “All this would do is prevent the gay rights crowd from gaining any perceived right to marry by going to the courts.”

If nothing will change, why go through the process of putting a hateful limitation in the Bill of Rights? Oh, right, activist judges who might find a “perceived” right. I keep forgetting that our rights are open to the subjective view of the not-really-a-majority majority. If enough people don’t like you for their own reasons, you’re out of luck. As a bonus, there’s no need to consider whether or not a judge would actually interpret Virginia’s Constitution so that gays “gain” the right to marry.

“Opponents are looking for every single nuance to say why we’ve put this on the ballot,” said Del. John A. Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake), another sponsor of the amendment. “All the brouhaha about unintended consequences and any partisan motivations are just scare tactics.”

I’m an opponent, but I’m not looking for nuance here. The wording and hysteria makes it fairly obvious that bigotry explains this proposed amendment. But Del Cosgrove’s dismissal of the brouhaha about unintended consequences is an amusing insight into his understanding of government action, as well as his shameful agreement with exclusionary politics at the expense of justice and logic. He wants this amendments language to fight the potential for activist judges to read a right in the Virginia Constitution that he claims isn’t there. Okay, so a strict textual interpretation. So how would he decipher this, without needing an activist judge to decide that unmarried individuals actually means same-sex individuals?

“This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Allow me to grant for a moment the notion that this language achieves the specific “interest” of the Commonwealth. This is still nothing more than a bigoted assault on the Bill of Rights. That’s shameful, whatever the excuse.

Sports Weekend Update

As great as last weekend was for sports, this weekend is (so far) almost its polar opposite.

Phillies: A good, if scary, win yesterday, but it didn’t matter. With the Dodgers and Padres both winning, the Phillies barely missed the playoffs, breaking my heart in the process. Again. Don’t fret, though. Like every spring before, I’ll be back next year, as gullible and full of optimism as ever when pitchers and catchers report to Clearwater.

Virginia Tech: Having attended last week’s dogfight against Cincinnati, I knew we weren’t the 11th best team in college football. Running into a quality conference opponent scared me. And we lost. It was one of the more frustrating losses we’ve had in recent memory, for we were terrible in every aspect. But I can’t lie and say I was surprised. Until we start blocking for Sean Glennon, the other faults we discovered won’t matter. A one game deficit in the division standings is hardly insurmountable, so hope remains.

Redskins: The Redskins face Jacksonville this afternoon. Jacksonville is good. Their defense against our offense will likely result in a loss for the Redskins. I’ll watch the entire game, regardless, because I’m that way.

Can I steal a MINI if I spend $25,000 on football cards?

I don’t have much to say on Hollywood’s economic assertions about intellectual property piracy, other than to say that I’m sure it’s overstated, it will result in destructive legislation, and it will delay the industry’s entrance into the 21st Century of electronic distribution. In other words, it’s the typical nonsense from a dinosaur. However, this quote countering Hollywood’s nonsense is bogus:

It’s important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said.

“In other words, let’s say people are forgoing paying for $6 billion in movies by downloading or consuming illegal goods but end up spending that $6 billion on iPods, computers and HDTV sets on which to watch the movies, which leads to $25 billion in job creation in the computer/software/consumer electronics field,” Jason Shultz, staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote in an e-mail.

The net economic effect of piracy is irrelevant to the intellectual property discussion. It does not matter that consumers spend their $350 on an iPod instead of movies. What matters is that $350 is not going to the company that created something of value to the consumer. There are many theories on how best to protect intellectual property and guarantee payment, most of them interesting. But the basic formulation of the problem does not include a community approach to evaluating economic spending. He who takes the risk should reap the reward.

House Majority Leader John Boehner is a badass

The formulation of this story’s opening paragraph implies that something unconstitutional can be made constitutional by wishing it so, but I’ll present it for context:

The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

“The Democrats’ irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people,” Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

“To always have reasons why you just can’t vote ‘yes,’ I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them,” Boehner said.

How many different ways is Rep. Boehner mistaken?

  • Upholding the Constitution is not irrational. It’s what Representatives (and Senators and Presidents) are sworn to do.
  • Violating the Fourth Amendment is not a “strong national security policy.”
  • Our nation is secure because Republicans are on the job. Our nation is not secure, which is why we still need Republicans in charge. Make up your mind.
  • Better able to take on terrorists? Worthy of debate. More willing? Conceded. But I’m stuck on the defeat part. It’s been five years and they’re still around. The desired permanence of warrantless wiretapping suggests that defeating terrorists isn’t the sole objective. Might there be better tools designed specifically to the task?

But Rep. Boehner knows how to disregard the Constitution for election year politics. Like I said, he’s a badass. God help us all.